' MUHAMMAD EJAZ SWATI, J.--- Through the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Order dated 13th August, 2011 (hereinafter the "impugned order") passed by the Governor Balochistan (respondent No,1) and sought the following relief:- "It is therefore respectfully prayed, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the impugned order dated 13-8-2011 passed Governor Balochistan here as respondent No,1 as illegal, unlawful, without lawful authority and in excess of jurisdiction as such null and void.
' Further this Hon'ble court kindly be pleased to declare that under section 32 of the Establishment of the Provincial Ombudsman Ordinance, 2001, the Governor is neither vested with power to entertain representation filed after period of 30 days, nor he has power to condone the delay.
' Further any other relief which this Hon'ble tribunal deems fit and proper may also be awarded; in the interest of justice."
2. The facts arising out of the instant constitutional petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Senior Science Teacher (Gen:) ("SST") in BPS-16, vide order dated 12th March, 1999 and was posted at Government High School Mirwah District Naseerabad, however, he was terminated vide order dated 20th January, 2000, issued by the respondent No,2, as such, the petitioner filed representation dated 28th January 2000, which according to the petitioner, was not decided, therefore, he submitted subsequent representations dated 5th February, 2001, 21st May, 2003, 26th July, 200' and 29th March, 2005 respectively, however, when the representation of the petitioner was not decided, he filed a complaint before the Provincial Ombudsman Balochistan, Quetta on 26th October, 2009, which after notice and hearing, was allowed vide order dated 6th September, 2010. The said order was assailed by the respondent No,2 before the respondent No,1, which was allowed vide order dated 13th August, 2011, and the order of the Provincial Ombudsman was set aside. The petitioner impugned the order of the respondent No,1 through the instant Constitutional Petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that tie very representation filed by the respondent No,2 before the respondent No,1 was barred by time, and without filing application for condonation of delay and sufficient cause, the acceptance of representation was illegal and unlawful; that the limitation for filing of the appeal against the order of the Ombudsman is 30 days and the respondent No,1 under the provisions of Establishment of Office of Provincial Ombudsman Ordinance, 2001 (hereinafter, the "Ordinance, 2001") had no lawful authority either to entertain the representation or condone the delay; that the appellate forum exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it; that in the impugned order, the provisions of law have been misinterpreted, which caused grave prejudice to the petitioner.
4. The learned Assistant Advocate-General controverted the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that under the provisions of Ordinance, 2001, the jurisdiction related to service matters is ousted; that the order passed by the respondent No,4, is patently without jurisdiction and unlawful which was rightly held so by the appellate forum; that the petitioner had alternate and efficacious remedy to file appeal before the Balochistan Service Tribunal against the termination of his service and in presence of bar contained under Article 212 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the present petition is not maintainable.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. We find that the petitioner in respect of his termination order dated 20th January, 2000, had filed representation dated 28th January 2000 before the respondent No,2 and according to the petitioner, due to non-deciding of the said representation, he subsequently submitted representations dated 5th February, 2001, 21st May, 2003, 26th July, 2004 and 29th March, 2005 respectively, but despite filing the said representations, the respondent No,2 did not decide the same. The petitioner after nine (9) years of filing the said representation had approached the respondent No,4, by submitting a complaint dated 26th October, 2009, which was accepted vide order dated 6th September, 2010 and the said order was set aside by the appellate authority i,e, respondent No,1 vide order dated 13th August, 2011. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority had got no jurisdiction to entertain the representation or condone the delay, is not tenable on the ground that the very complaint filed by the petitioner before the respondent No,4, whereby nine years delay had been condoned by the respondent No,4, without having any application for condonation of delay or plausible cause. The petitioner being a Government servant assailed his termination order A before the Ombudsman, who had no lawful authority to assume jurisdiction upon the matter related to the terms and conditions of the service of the petitioner (civil servant) and that too after lapse of nine years. Section 9(1)(2) of the Ordinance, 2001 barred the jurisdiction of the Provincial Ombudsman, which reads as under: "(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), the Ombudsman shall not accept for investigation any complaint by or on behalf of a public servant or functionary concerning any matters relating to the Agency in which he is, or has been, working in respect of any personal grievance relating to his service therein."
5. The aforesaid provision of law clearly bars the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman in respect of personal grievance relating to the service of a public servant, therefore, the very complaint filed by the petitioner before the respondent No,4 was not maintainable and the order passed thereto was without jurisdiction and lawful authority. The question of limitation may not, therefore, arise in respect of a judgment, which has been passed by the forum having no jurisdiction as held in the judgment reported in PLD 2001 SC 514.
6. It is now well settled that a dispute such as pertains to terms and conditions of service of a civil servant can only be raised before an appropriate service tribunal and not before the Ombudsman, whose jurisdiction is barred under section 9 of the Ordinance, 2001 and Article 212 of the Constitution. It provides notwithstanding anything hereinabove contained, when an administrative Court or Tribunal is established no other Court shall grant an injunction, makes any order or entertain any proceeding in respect of matter of such administrative Court or Tribunal. The petitioner was civil servant at the time of termination of his service and his grievance was traceable to the terms and conditions of his service, therefore, he was obliged to seek redressal of his grievance from the service tribunal as held in the judgment reported in 1985 SCM R 1408.
7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that despite filing various representations before the respondent No,2, the same were not decided, therefore, the petitioner under the Ordinance, 2001, had rightly approached the said forum for redressal of his grievance, is also not tenable. Had his representations/appeal were not decided by the competent authority within a period of 90 days, then he had recourse to file an appeal before the Balochistan Service Tribunal under section 4 of the Balochistan Service Tribunals Act, 1974 (hereinafter the "Act, 1974") within a period of 30 days after decision of the appeal by the Department as provided by section 4 of the Act, 1974, which is reproduced herein below:- "Appeals to Tribunals.--- Any Civil servant aggrieved by any final order, whether original or appellate, made by departmental authority in. Respect of any of the terms and conditions of his service may, within thirty days of the communication of such order to him, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal having jurisdiction in the matter: ' Provided that--
(a) where an appeal, review or representation to a departmental authority is provided under any law or any rules against any such order, no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal unless the aggrieved civil servant has preferred an appeal or application for review or representation to such departmental authority and a period of ninety days has elapsed from the date on which such appeal , application or representation was, so preferred; and
(b) no appeal shall lie to a Tribunal against an order or decision of a departmental authority determining---
(i) the fitness or otherwise of a person to be appointed to or hold a particular or to be promoted post to a higher post or grade; or
(ii) the quantum of departmental punishment or penalty imposed on a civil servant as a result of departmental inquiry, except where the penalty imposed is dismissal from service, removal from service or compulsory retirement."
8. The period for filing of appeal before the Service Tribunal is to be reckoned, if the appeal is not decided within 90 days after expiry of 90 days, he within 30 days is required to file a service appeal before the 'E Service Tribunal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of the Pakistan in a case of Ghulam Shabbir v. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways and others 2013 SCM R 700, held as under:-- - "The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner stated that his Departmental Appeal, rejected on 30-3-2014, was not communicated to the petitioner. This argument is not relevant as after lapse of 90 days from filing of Departmental Appeal, the petitioner had 30 days to file service appeal before the Service Tribunal whether or not his Departmental Appeal was rejected. His appeal before the Tribunal was clearly barred by time and the impugned judgment does not call for any interference by this Court."
In view of the above, the Constitutional Petition No,626 of 2011 is dismissed and the parties arc left to bear their own cost.